From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wray v. Railroad Company

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jul 17, 1914
98 S.C. 278 (S.C. 1914)

Opinion

8902

July 17, 1914.

Before W.B. GRUBER, special Judge, Barnwell, October, 1913. Appeal dismissed.

Action by Minnie C. Wray against Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. From order granting a new trial, plaintiff appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Thos. M. Boulware, for appellant, cites: Measure of damages for loss of personal baggage: 75 S.C. 58; 6 Cyc. 677; 68 S.C. 528. Questions not raised by exceptions: 34 S.C. 160: Code Civil Proc. 397. Power of Court to order new trial: Code Civil Proc. 407.

Messrs. Harley Best, for respondent, cite: Measure of damages: 79 S.C. 155; 76 S.C. 338; 75 S.C. 58, distinguished. Judgment according to justice of case: 87 S.C. 267; 70 S.C. 178; 81 S.C. 461; 83 S.C. 547.


July 17, 1914. The opinion of the Court was delivered by


This action was commenced in a magistrate's Court, for the recovery of ten dollars damages, to a trunk, while it was being transported by the defendant as baggage of the plaintiff, from Dunn. N.C., to Barnwell, S.C. and for the statutory penalty of fifty dollars for failure to pay the claim within the time required by law.

Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, for the full amount claimed, and the defendant appealed to the Circuit Court, whereupon his Honor, the presiding Judge, reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial, on two grounds, to wit: (1) Because of error on the part of the magistrate in his charge as to the measure of damages, and (2) because he was "of the opinion that the plaintiff's testimony as to the value and damage to her trunk was not as full and satisfactory as it ought to have been, in order to have supported a verdict for ten dollars."

One of the grounds upon which his Honor, the Circuit Judge, based his order for a new trial was, that there was error on the part of the magistrate in his findings of fact. When an order for a new trial is based, upon a question of fact, it is not appealable. Daughty v. R.R., 92 S.C. 361, 75 S.E. 553; Kirkland v. Ry., 93 S.C. 574, 77 S.E. 709.

Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

Wray v. Railroad Company

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jul 17, 1914
98 S.C. 278 (S.C. 1914)
Case details for

Wray v. Railroad Company

Case Details

Full title:WRAY v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R.R. CO

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Jul 17, 1914

Citations

98 S.C. 278 (S.C. 1914)
82 S.E. 412

Citing Cases

Snipes v. Davis, Director General, et al

" This case was cited in Eaker v. Floyd, 97 S.C. 381; 81 S.E., 656, where the order granting the new trial…

Ellis v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

Action by John O. Ellis against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff,…